Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition by Shri Ganpat Singh under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner filed a nomination paper for the Pradhanship of the Village Panchayat of Deogaon, in the Tehsil of Kekri of the then Ajmer State, on the 8th of October 1956. THE dates of receiving nomination papers were from 6th to 8th of October 1956 and the time given was from 10.00 A M. to 4.00 P.M. THE nomination paper with which we are concerned, was filed at 2.55 P. M. THE nomination was proposed by Sunder Lal and it was second by Surajmal. THE following endorsement was made by the Returning Officer Shri J. N. Mathur (Respondent No. 1 in this case) - 'Presented by Shri Ganapat Singh S/o Sangram Singh of village Deogaon, to-day at 2.55 p. M. (Sd.) J.N. Mathur 8/10." On the 10th of October 1956, which was fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers, this nomination paper was rejected and the following endorsement was made on the nomination paper - "Since there is no serial number of the seconder Surajmal the form is rejected. (Sd.) J.N. Mathur 10/10 Returning Officer" THE result of the rejection of this nomination paper was that only Shri Bhanwarlal (Respondent No. 4 in this case) was left among the candidates and he was consequently declared returned unopposed. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on the 19th of October 1956, before the judicial Commissioner of Ajmer State. After the merger of Ajmer State with the Rajasthan State, the petition has come to this Court. We have heard Shri M. B. L. Bhargava on behalf of the petition and Shri R. A. Gupta, Deputy Govt. Advocate on behalf of the first three respondents, who are all officials of the State. Shri Bhanwarlal, respondent No. 4, who was declared returned unopposed, has not put in appearance. The main argument of Shri Bhargava on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that serial number of the seconder was not given, is illegal. It has been argued that under rule 27 of the Rules of the Ajmer State Panchayat (Election and Business) Rules, 1956, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, no emphasis has been laid on the giving of the serial number on the list either of the candidate or of the proposer or the seconder. It has been argued that under sub-rule (2) of rule 27, a candidate has been required to deliver either in person or by his proposer or seconder to the Returning Officer on the date and place and during the hours fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25, a nomination paper in the prescribed form subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two electors as proposer and seconder. It was argued that under sub-rule (4), the Returning Officer is required on the presentation of a nomination paper to satisfy himself that the names of the candidate and his proposer and seconder as entered in the nomination paper, are the same as those entered in the voters' register. It was argued that the satisfaction of the Returning Officer should be with respect to the name of the candidate and that of his proposer and seconder and once he is so satisfied, it is not necessary for him to look to the serial number. It was further argued that proviso to sub-rule (4) authorises the Returning Officer to permit any clerical error in the nomination paper in regard to the nomination of the candidate, the proposer and the seconder to be corrected in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the voters' register, and if necessary to direct that any clerical or printing error in the said entries shall be overlooked. It was argued that if the same importance were attached to the serial numbers, it would have been made the duty of the Returning Officer to examine the serial numbers also on the presentation of the nomination paper and to permit corrections or condonation as provided by the proviso in the case of the names of the elector, the proposer and the seconder. Mr. Bhargava further argued that after the presentation of the nomination paper when the stage of the scrutiny comes, the Returning Officer can reject a nomination paper on any one or more of the following grounds, as provided by sub-rule (2) of Rule 30: (a) That the candidate is not qualified under the Act if chosen to fill the seat; (b) That the candidate is disqualified if chosen to fill the seat under the Act; or (c) That there has been failure to comply with any of the provisions of rule 27. It was argued that grounds Nos. (a) and (b) under sub-rule (2) for the rejection of the nomination paper at the stage of scrutiny did not exist in the present case. The ground on which the nomination paper was rejected does not come under clause (c) also. It was argued that there would have been failure to comply with any of the provisions of rule 27 if the nomination paper were not delivered as required by that rule. An argument was made with reference to see. 33 of the Representation of Peoples Act that under that Act, electoral roll number has been given the same importance as the name and the Returning Officer has been enjoined to satisfy himself that the names and the electoral numbers of the candidate and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral rolls. Under the rules in question, satisfaction of the Returning Officer with respect to electoral roll numbers has not been enjoined upon as in the case of the name. Finally, it was argued that the Legislature requires that the candidate as well as the proposer and the seconder should be capable of being identified with the persons whose names appear on the electoral roll, and even if the Returning Officer had any doubt; it was his duty to call upon the petitioner to establish the identity of the seconder. This was not done, and on the mere technical omission which was not substantial, the nomination paper was rejected. It was argued that no reply or affidavit has been filed by the successful candidate and that even the three Government officials, Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not file any reply, nor did they file any affidavit up to the 27th of November 1957, when an affidavit was filed by the Returning Officer. In this affidavit, the Returning Officer has said that at the time of scrutiny there was no evidence on the record that the seconder was the same person who signed the nomination paper and his name is in the voters' list. It was argued that this question was never raised and the petitioner was not at all required to satisfy the Returning Officer that the seconder was the same person, who signed the nomination paper and his name was on the voters' list. This statement of the Returning Officer, it was argued, was an after-thought, and did not accord with the endorsement made on the back of the nomination paper. On behalf of Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it was argued by Shri R. A. Gupta that sub-rule (2) of rule 27 requires that nomination paper should be in the prescribed form subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two electors as proposer and seconder. The prescribed form of nomination paper has been given at No. 6 at the end of the Rules. This form requires that the serial number of the proposer arid the seconder should also be given. As the serial number of the seconder was not given, there was no compliance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 27, and consequently the Returning Officer was perfectly justified in rejecting the nomination paper under clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 30. We have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. Under Rule 27 (2), a candidate is required to deliver a nomination paper in the prescribed form subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two electors as proposer and seconder on the date and place and during the hours fixed under sub-rule(2) of Rule 25. The nomination paper can be delivered either in person or by the proposer or seconder of the candidate. In the present case, the nomination paper was delivered by the candidate himself. It was also delivered on the date and place and during the hours fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25. This nomination paper was also on the prescribed form all the entries required by the form were duly filled, excepting that the serial number of the seconder in the register of voters was not given. The nomination paper was subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by a proposer and a seconder. So far as the candidate and the proposer are concerned, their serial numbers on the register of voters were also given. Only the serial number of the seconder was not given. The question, therefore, arises whether the seconder was one of the electors. It has not been denied that the seconder Surajmal was an elector according to the register of voters. The petitioner has filed his affidavit swearing that the proposer Sundar Lal and the seconder Surajmal were electors. There is, therefore, no dispute in this case that the seconder Sundermal was not one of the electors. The only question to be considered is whether the omission of the serial number in the register of voters of Shri Suraj Mal seconder was such as to justify the Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. We find that sub-rule(2) of Rule 27, requires a nomination paper in the prescribed form subscribed by a candidate himself and by two electors as proposer and seconder. It does not use the word 'completed' which has been used in sec. 33 of the Representation of People Act. Under the Representation of Peoples Act, sub-sec. (4) of sec. 33 requires a Returning Officer to satisfy himself that the names and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those in the electoral roll. The proviso to sub-sec. (4) of sec. 33, Representation of Peoples Act, authorises the Returning Officer to permit any clerical or technical error in the nomination paper in regard to the said names or numbers to be corrected in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the electoral rolls and wherever necessary to direct that any clerical or printing error in the said entries shall be overlooked. It would thus be found that where ever the Legislature has considered to emphasise the putting in of names and numbers as obtaining in the electoral rolls, it has been clearly laid down. In the Rules, such an emphasis on electoral roll number does not appear to have been laid and it has been considered sufficient if the names of the three material persons are the same as entered in the voters' register (vide sub-rule (4) of Rule (27). As importance has been attached to the names of the three persons, provision has also been made for the correction in the names in order to bring them into conformity with the corresponding entries in the voters register and wherever necessary to direct that any clerical or printing error in respect of names shall be overlooked. To our mind under the Rules, the omission to put in electoral number of the three necessary persons is not fatal to the nomination paper and if there is any doubt in the mind of the Raturning Officer regarding the identity of any of these three persons, it is for him to call upon the interested person or persons to establish the identity. In the present case, even the belated affidavit of the Returning Officer does not show that the petitioner or his proposer or seconder was called upon to establish the identity of the seconder Surajmal. In this affidavit, it has been stated that there was no evidence brought on the record that the seconder is the same person who signed the nomination paper and his name is in the voters' list. The question of producing such evidence would have arisen if there were anything to show that any objection was taken with respect to the identity of the seconder and any of the persons concerned was given notice of that objection so that he might have produced evidence to show that the seconder was the same person, who had signed the nomination paper and his name was on the voters' list. The serial number in a Parliamentary constituency under the Representation of Peoples Act becomes necessary on account of the volume of the electoral roll. It might not be easy to find out the names of necessary persons in the electoral roll unless the numbers are given. In a small constituency like that of a village panchayat such an importance cannot be attached to the serial number because in the first instance the voter are well known to the persons concerned and if the names are to be traced out on the voters' list, they can be easily found out even if the serial number is not given. The real intention is that it is only the eligible persons who might be accepted as candidates of as proposer or seconder and that no unauthorized person should come in. Where, therefore, identity can be easily proved even in the absence of a serial number, the mere omission to give a serial number should not be fatal to the combination paper. It is with this view that we find that the electoral roll number has not been given the same importance under the rules as it has been given under the Representation of Peoples Act. We find that in the present case the rejection of the nomination paper on the ground that serial number of the seconder was not given in the nomination paper was not justified and the mistake is such that the order can be quashed on an application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. It was held by this Court in the case of Surajmal Sharma vs. Prithvi Singh (1), under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act that: - "A mere slight difference in the name of a proposer will not be a good ground for rejection of a nomination paper, if his identity can be established among the persons entitled to propose and second." No doubt the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat and the rules made thereunder are not exactly identical with the provisions of the rules with which we are concerned, but the decision of the Bench of this Court in the above case lays down a principle that on account of a technical mistake or omission, nomination paper should not be rejected if the identity of the parties to the nomination paper can be established. This salutary principle can be well applied to this case as well. The petition is allowed, the order of the Returning Officer dated the 10th of October 1956 rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner is set aside and it is ordered that the election of the Pradhanship of Deogaon Panchayat be held in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. Under the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. ;